Email this article to a friend

Workers are tantalized by the proximity of a ‘dream job,’ keeping their noses pressed against the glass in the belief that the sheer force of their longing will shatter it.

“Do what you love” is not a new mantra. Since at least the 1980s, when individualistic ambition was elevated to a national virtue, Americans have taken for granted that good work should reward the soul. It sounds so obvious, so optimistic: How better to escape work, that dull scourge of existence, than by finding a way to turn it into its opposite—leisure, pleasure, creativity, joy?

Do What You Love: And Other Lies about Success & Happiness, Miya Tokumitsu’s short, sharp and timely new book based on her hit Jacobin essay “In the Name of Love,” stabs plenty of pins into this heart-shaped balloon. In today’s increasingly freelance economy, DWYL has become a convenient way for corporations to pay fewer people less money for more work. If work is what you love, after all, why do anything else? We’ve come a long way, Tokumitsu argues, from the traditional Protestant work ethic, which held that laboring to make money was virtuous precisely because it wasn’t enjoyable. Drudgery was dignity, and the reward lay in heaven, or at least retirement. We no longer live in self-denying times. “Today, ideal work is the combined pursuit of pleasure and capital,” Tokumitsu writes. Just ask the beaming CEO giving the commencement address.

Tokumitsu sees the mantra leveraged on three levels, correlating to the executive, middling and entry-level “rungs” of employment (though they no longer form a ladder one can predictably climb). At the top, “passion” rules. Workers who have achieved the fantasy trifecta of wealth, status and power must continue to prove their commitment by staying later at the office than anyone else, and remaining visibly connected (via social media and email) to their professional worlds even off the clock. As Tokumitsu notes wryly, “ideal love is nothing if not constant”—even though studies show that people who work “heroic” hours are unproductive, miserable and liable to get sick.

The pressure to perform is exerted by competitive office cultures and job insecurity, and affirmed by popular culture— Tokumitsu cites two television shows, Enlightened and The Good Wife, each of which romanticizes the workaholism of a woman in a white-collar job. In the first, a sales executive (Laura Dern) loses her professional status and, as a consequence, her sense of identity. In the second, a lawyer (Julianna Margulies) finds personal gratification by returning to her job after years out of the workforce raising her children. The Good Wife pushes work-as-fantasy so far that viewers can even buy furniture from the on-screen office for home use. In real life, however, a woman returning to the workforce after a hiatus, even a senior executive, is far more likely to see her career plummet than soar, making The Good Wife a particularly fraudulent form of professional wish-fulfillment.

For lower-level, white-collar and corporate workers, the DWYL drumbeat is somewhat muted—though Tokumitsu still discerns its effect in pressure to exhibit attitudes of “insistent happiness” at work. Tokumitsu also notes that the rise of DWYL correlates with the glut of micromanagement such as employee surveillance and relentless performance assessments, which seem to exist only to justify middle-management positions. As skilled workers lose their autonomy and give up authority to omnipresent managers, DWYL may be most appealingly rephrased as do what you like—it’s a fantasy of what work could be without stifling oversight.

In all these different arenas, the DWYL fairy tale motivates by decoupling work and money, insisting that workers should be fulfilled by work itself, regardless of salary. It therefore excludes those who may be working the longest (and least lovable) hours of all: the minimum-wage workers who brew the morning coffee for the stressed executives and empty the wastebaskets after dark at the starchitect’s gleaming offices. There’s no reason a worker might not enjoy and appreciate this work, if it paid decently and offered benefits and security. But the mantra insists workers should love work for itself, rather than as a means to an end. More sinisterly, because it also pretends that “work and class float free from each other,” DWYL implicitly assumes that everyone has the same options to follow their heart, and denigrates the worker who “chooses” not to.

Tokumitsu argues that DWYL targets women with particular force. Work that is traditionally gendered female “is often assumed to be done out of love”; it’s women’s supposedly innate nurturing instincts that draw them to nursing, teaching and care work, not a desire for high pay or high status—perhaps one reason why teachers and nurses who strike or protest for better pay are often vilified. But in white-collar offices, too, DWYL culture pressures workers to exhibit joy and gratitude for the privilege of doing their jobs—attitudes that female employees are already especially rewarded for displaying and punished for lacking. In a world of disgracefully inadequate childcare provisions for workers, women often end up in the “flexible” freelance workforce, where the DWYL ethos reigns supreme.

The logical endpoint of such thinking is “hope labor,” a term Tokumitsu borrows to describe the combination of self-delusion and systemic abuse that keeps a steady stream of unpaid interns (77 percent of whom are female) flocking to donate their labor to government agencies, nonprofits and private companies alike. Hope also keeps adjunct professors and minor-league baseball players in their downtrodden place, doing work that is basically identical to that of their full-time, highly visible colleagues but for which they receive just a fraction of the pay and not a crumb of the respect. All these workers are tantalized by the proximity of a “dream job,” keeping their noses pressed against the glass in the belief that the sheer force of their longing will shatter it. Tokumitsu crisply contrasts this “timorous longing” with the concrete optimism that comes from livable wages, salary increases, long-term contracts and healthcare—not to mention slashing the student debt burden. But fighting together for better working conditions entails admitting that we are workers, not freewheeling, independent “creatives.”

But for how long? Tokumitsu is not alone in pointing out that work as we know it is changing, even disappearing. Over the past half-century, the capitalist dogma of relentless economic growth has had devastating effects on the planet, while technology has advanced to the point at which millions of jobs in manufacturing, transportation and telecommunications are (or may soon be) obsolete. Together, these circumstances force us to reconsider what worthwhile and necessary employment looks like. DWYL may yet become a radical slogan, if it pushes us—all of us—to find meaning and joy in our lives beyond the capitalist imperative. But as career advice, it’s a disaster.

Joanna Scutts is a freelance writer based in Queens, NY, and a board member of the National Book Critics Circle. Her book reviews and essays have appeared in the Washington Post, the New Yorker Online, The Nation, The Wall Street Journal and several other publications. You can follow her on Twitter @life_savour.

I absolutely agree. Right now most of the major corporate interests are exploiting the current global labor situation to keep labor cost down and profits funneling to the top. They are not concerned with living wages and worker rights; they in fact see those concepts as drains on their profits. Automation will reduce the need to even outsource manufacturing and production overseas; as machines can work 24/7 from anywhere. This was all played out in the Industrial Revolution(which is what Marx was commenting on) but the observations he espouses are even more piercing today than before, because back then most of the labor freed up by industrialization was absorbed by the factory and manufacturing jobs. The robotic/automation revolution will not have that same effect; because the focus of labor will move away from human effort to purely mechanical systems and people will not be able to contribute at all to the process of labor and production.

Some might see this as an opportunity for us to transform to a design and craft based society; but the truth is we need alot less creative builders and automation will make specialized crafting all but irrelevant, so in the end we will have large segment of the recently connected global economy without work and without opportunity to earn a living. The political and social ramification of this has not been contemplated by anyone and our leaders attitudes about social safety nets and the dignity of living a safe and decent life shows we are not prepared for the coming upheaval.

Posted by Hugo Ortega on 2015-08-10 19:48:21

You are missing the point. The author is not pointing out some potential utopia but a rising problem. Automation and computerization are literally making massive amounts of jobs in the service and manufacturing industry obsolete. For example it take significantly less people to build a car today than 50 years ago. Shipping and retail have seen huge reductions in workforce due to automation. The truth is that corporations see the solution to the labor rights problem to automate as much of their manufacturing and distributions process and services as possible. In the next couple of decades computers and robotics will reach a level where the majority, if not all, of the menial and low skill jobs will no longer be done by humans. Everything from fast food workers to retail and services will be reduced to just a few people necessary to maintain the systems and operate the business.

What is missing from this future is all the extra people who were working in those jobs who were using that work to survive. They most certainly were not DWTL and with the removal of those jobs the possibility of advancing yourself or improving your situation becomes remote. The last 40 years have been a slow buildup to this point where globalization will affect everyone; and automation will affect the world quicker than outsourcing. As right now most of human labor is being outsources overseas because it's cheaper to pay for that labor in nations where social safety nets and citizen rights are weaker and can be exploited; what happens when machines and computers can do that same work; require no benefits, no health insurance, safety rules, works 24/7 and complains about nothing? Oh and never gets tired or has personal problems? Instead of sharing their profits and concerning themselves about living wages and being responsible employers most corporations will flock to these technologies as a way to keep operating costs down and profits funneling to the top. Unlike the transformation from agrarian to industrial society that marked the Industrial Revolution the new industry will not create ever rising opportunities for employment and wealth. Large portions of the population will literally become obsolete and there will not be enough "new jobs" to make up for the economy that was primarily based upon human physical labor and now would be replaced with almost perfect worker units, which actually represents most corporate utopias.

The core of the article is the manipulation of workers with the DWYL philosophy to get people to work more hours, harder, for less pay or else be stigmatized as a bad worker. The resistance to that philosophy is the idea that every worker should be treated with respect and should be allowed to receive enough compensation from their labor to live a decent life. This is a philosophy that most corporation are diametrically opposed to, thought hey cannot publicly or openly profess that. The new technologies are the perfect solution to the problem. Why worry about unions when the majority of your worker are replaced or CAN BE REPLACED by machines? Why listen to employees demands? How could a low level employee justify any improvement to their working conditions or situation when they know that their position can be easily replaced by something that will never demand anything? This is already playing out and the technological revolution hasn't happened yet. People are extremely fearful that they will be laid off and their job outsourced or replaced by a lower paid employees. That already drives the suppression of wages and the increase in work hours and job duties. The DWYL philosophy in a sense is a brainwashing technique used to keep those remaining working in line just long enough that they can be replaced. And most people will pretend to be in love with their job right up to the moment they lose it. Right now the threat is from other people, and quite possibly in the near future with a machine.

Posted by Hugo Ortega on 2015-08-10 19:30:45

You nailed it. I work for an international corporation. We have mandatory attendance at forums with themes like Discover Your Passion. Frankly, I was paying to attend such things 25 - 30 years ago, on my own. But sponsored by an employer, these days? Puh ....lease.

Posted by Jana Pellusch on 2015-08-09 12:00:28

Hello? Per the discussion (my comment from 1 day ago):'I believe it came from the United Auto Workers ...."30 for 40." Forty hours pay for thirty hours of work. Spread the work, no reduction in pay.'

Posted by Jana Pellusch on 2015-08-09 11:52:37

"But for how long? Tokumitsu is not alone in pointing out that work as we know it is changing, even disappearing. Over the past half-century, the capitalist dogma of relentless economic growth has had devastating effects on the planet, while technology has advanced to the point at which millions of jobs in manufacturing, transportation and telecommunications are (or may soon be) obsolete."

That reads like she's calling for a world without jobs

Also, a three day work week means a FORTY PERCENT CUT IN PAY

Is my landlord going to reduce my rent 40%?

Is Trader Joes going to cut the price of groceries 40%?

Will Time Warner, Con Edison and Sprint cut my utility bills by 40%?

Sorry, I have zero interest in a FORTY PERCENT PAY CUT

The construction contractors in New York tried to cram a 20% pay cut down the throats of New York construction workers and we responded with protests and a wildcat strike at the World Trade Center site - imagine how we'd react to a 40% pay cut

2/3+3/4 < I'm money over $8k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people telling me how much earning they can Get online so I decided to look in-to it. welldone' it was a all true and has completely changed my life.How This work

Show domain in reply

Posted by marymduncan on 2015-08-09 02:29:51

I personally hate the appropriation by the corporate world of language stemed from arts & entertainment : they seek "talent" to sell screwdrivers or pills, they hire "creatives" to write slogans that sell soup, they want "passion" for clerical work, wtf.... it just devalues everything, just to "pump up" some egos and give their employees an illusion of being someone they're not.

Posted by Gyo on 2015-08-08 13:44:22

I believe it came from the United Auto Workers ...."30 for 40." Forty hours pay for thirty hours of work. Spread the work, no reduction in pay.

Posted by Jana Pellusch on 2015-08-08 11:34:16

A future without jobs is called permanent unemployment.

Back in the 1950s (and even later) "automation" was deemed a threat mainly by people who worried that, in the absence of the necessity of work, we'd either descend to levels of decadence and depravity or go stark, raving bonkers out of boredom.

No such worries remain. Instead many of us are working two or three part-time jobs just to put enough gas in the car to go from one workplace to another. This, by the way, applies to everyone from fast-food servers to adjunct university professors!

Meanwhile, just as Marx observed the "reserve army of unemployed" as a limitation on the wages and working conditions of the industrial "proletariat," so we observe the desperation and timidity of the "precariat." At least the people enduring the transition from artisinal and agricultural labor to the "dark, satanic mills" of the industrial revolution saw what was coming and the best among them paid for their dissent on the gibbet. We lack the imagination and the courage of the memorable Luddites (properly, "The Army of Redressers"), and so we are condemned to witness the "the degradation of work" (in the words of Harry Braverman's subtitle to "Monopoly Capitalism" - 1974) and, perhaps, the "end of work" (to use Jeremy Rifkin's book title - 2003).

Posted by goodsensecynic on 2015-08-08 11:17:29

The idea of a three or at least not more than a four day work week was envisioned by futurists some half century ago. Never in my wildest dreams did I envision that we would more in the exact opposite direction to where, at least for salaried workers exempt from overtime, 60 hours work weeks became more the norm than 40. Have you noticed the pressures from so many angles of the society offering us very little lingering time? Even kids are so over-scheduled today in comparison to when I was growing up. Many no longer have the luxury of building leaf forts in the fall and snow forts in winter. Not only this pressure, but the fear that off-the-cuff comments may throw us a bit off the loop in this age of political correctness. A book I wrote a couple of years ago, JUDAS TIMES SEVEN, describes how in today's workplace office politics and political correctness trump reason. I just hope we can go forth to not ignore useful tidbits.

Posted by beechnut79 on 2015-08-08 10:46:09

I have no idea where you got "that fantasy of a world without jobs" out of the last paragraph. Perhaps a bit of projection or you hd a ready made argument for that particular straw man ?

Posted by brunssd on 2015-08-08 10:12:29

A world without jobs? That's not what she is saying. I see one option to be analyzing what work there is to be done, taking the number of people in the workforce, and dividing up the work. Three day work week sounds good to me. Of course, this could only be done in a planned economy. This is the next logical phase in human economic history, but most people in the U.S. are not ready to hear this. Yet.

Posted by Jana Pellusch on 2015-08-08 09:40:18

I was with you til the last paragraph - that fantasy of a world without jobs

Look, maybe the author wishes she could personally drop out of the labor force (something women could actually do via marrying men with good jobs up until very recently) but that's not possible for most women

Instead of taking about making jobs better, she imagines a future without jobs - and I can't share that dream